Thinking about a few things:

I am probably going to get depressed again this weekend. Is that the right response to knowledge of disaster? In the past, I think people only knew about disaster when they could do something about it or afterwards. At least, in my simplified view of the past, that's how I see it. (The ideal state of man being feudal-- just go with it) I see people facing a hurricane, and their neighboring townships coming to their aid by offering a place to stay or helping them rebuild after the storm passes. In today's world, the information goes so fast and so far that (as Ed posted) the president of Indonesia or where ever was watching a cricket game or something on the other end of the world and commenting on a storm that wasn't done raising hell here.

Am I making sense? What I'm lamenting is knowledge without connection. I could (if I wanted) watch Texas get torn a new one this weekend and not care at all. Or I could
be human about it and feel for them
be just one person and only able to give an insignificant amount of money to the charity of my choice
be required to pick up my life on monday as if my countrymen weren't in big trouble a thousand miles away

There's a disconnect here, and I don't like it. If I can't solve the problems that the world drops on my plate, then I don't know if I want to be aware of them. I want to expand my influence, to be able to do ever-greater things, but I can't help expanding my awareness, especially of the inequity and injustice and tragedies of the world. And I think that's a recipe for despair. What good is repainting the house of the old lady down the street for her when in the back of my head I know there are children being sold into slavery?

Sometimes vomiting makes a lot of sense.